‘The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rendered by 15:2 in Lautsi v Italy (App. No.: 30814/06) on the 18th March 2011 that it is justifiable for public funded schools in Italy to continue displaying crucifixes on the classroom walls.’

The idea that if there is a set of rights, or are rights, that a man has, and that citizens have, is a matter of deep debate in Western society. It’s been one of the underlying themes of this blog. Those like myself, who are dubious of claims to universal rights (as opposed to freedoms and responsibilities), err on the side of caution and conservatism in domestic and political affairs. This view generally seeks limited government, limited central planning, and limited adherence to overarching theories that so quickly can become institutional goals, burdensome regulations, leveling forces, and political bludgeons. Generally, it’s not a view that fits well with humanitarian and universalist ideas in directing U.S foreign policy, but there’s always room for debate.

Perhaps a reasonable goal in long-term strategy is to weigh down the balance more toward diplomatic and political engagement, rather than current military engagement in the Middle-East. Of course, it’s necessary to maintain force and the possibility of force to achieve certain objectives. There are clear and real dangers to American security of which we all aware and must keep dealing with.

As the humanitarians might have it, the use of force may really only be morally permissible in rare cases of injustice where the international community must eventually convene, then intervene, in the affairs of others…as in Libya. We must limit our own actions according to these principles, as circumstances dictate, and potentially subsume U.S soverignty to build consensus. Also, I believe, the people making current policy assume these principles are universal. This is quite a change.

Another Addition: I should add that of course, there are rights: the right to vote, the right to a fair trial, granted to me by the Constitution. There are laws, which I must follow. There is, however a deeper debate regarding positive and negative rights. Any thoughts and comments are welcome.

Has there been a coalescence of executive authority which can overreach Constitutional limitations? Gone are the days of Madisonian democracy? Posner discusses his new book, The Executive Unbound.

‘There is a long-term trajectory, in this country and many other democracies, in the direction of executive primacy in domestic as well as foreign affairs, which one can identify only by comparing present to past. No one denies that the New Deal regulatory system gave presidents immense powers that did not exist prior to its creation, and that this system has only grown over the years. The financial regulation and health care laws are only the latest in a long series of delegations from Congress to the president, and they confirm that long-term trends have not been reversed in the Obama administration. We are talking about a continuous institutional development that reaches back almost a century and today is entrenched. It is time for legal thought to make its peace with it.’

Perhaps there has been, and as Posner makes the case, there’s not too much to be done about it.

Of course there’s plenty of political posturing and framing, but the crux of Kurtz’ argument is interesting:

‘Most of the commentary on Libya has focused on the tension between Obama’s apparent desire to displace Qaddafi and his reluctance to admit to it. But the chief reason for this intervention is the one that’s staring us in the face. Obama dithered when it was simply a matter of replacing Qaddafi, yet quickly acted when slaughter in Benghazi became the issue. What Samantha Power and her supporters want is to solidify the principle of “responsibility to protect” in international law.’

In my ignorance, I’ve been using the term ‘liberal internationalist’ because it seems to work. Obama seems reluctant to use any sort of American military power. I’m assuming his guiding ideas are mostly Western, and liberal humanitarian and universalist in foreign policy. He’s seeking to use international framework (to please the base…the independents who voted him in?), and as Kurtz notes, even walking close to the line of subsuming American sovereignty to that international framework. The downside risks aren’t just a protracted war in Libya, but getting burned by even our closer allies as we still carry most of the water.

Clearly, the U.N. has legitimacy and structural issues, and the Bush team was reluctant to gain U.N. approval. Perhaps now Obama is being overly deferential? What would be some consequences of Power’s theories?

Also, how are the two most recent president’s definitions of freedom (Bush’s human freedom…Obama’s arc of history…) getting crafted into foreign policy? Any president will have to deal with the bureaucratic and institutional structures in place.

On the possible tensions within the democratic party surrounding military action in Libya, Mead notes:

‘President Obama beware: If US troops are fighting in Libya in 2012 the ‘humanitarian hawks’ will likely be out campaigning against you in New Hampshire.’

Also, waiting for a coalition of international support and the benefits of doing so, while losing valuable time, still leaves the UN sending a mixed message:

‘More, the political objectives of the UN resolution are unclear. The resolution aims to ban Gaddafi attacks on rebels, but doesn’t call for removing him from office. Literally interpreted, this amounts to a call for an informal partition of Libya into pro- and anti-Gaddafi portions with foreign air forces keeping the peace between them.’

and:

‘At this point, we must live in hope: hope that the President and his team know what they are doing, and hope that an international show of force will bring a better future to Libya (which means a future with no Gaddafis in it) without further bloodshed.’

When I think of the choice between McCain and Obama, I still think Obama is the better choice on foreign policy. But even if he has a deeper vision for the Middle-East rooted in liberal internationalism, some broader experience or understanding, and somewhat of a more left and universalist set of Western ideas (if not a clear strategy), he still must be the Commander in Chief and handle many of the same institutions and limitations as the last President. Least of all he’ll have to handle his own party.

‘Mr. Obama sketched out a limited American military role, saying the U.S. would help set the stage “for the international community to act together,” and that there wouldn’t be any American troops on the ground’

Perhaps there will be no troops on the ground. Perhaps there will.

Obama seems to be taking the liberal internationalist, coalition-building approach, which has its dangers. Is this, in fact, what he’s even doing…does anyone know about long-term strategy? This administration’s delays in preparing strategy are concerning.

There are people animated by a vision of Islam that restores it to a place of central importance in the Muslim world (partly in response to the injustices of the autocrats and long-tribal/family rule and harsh punishment they inflict…partly from the relatively weak economies, high levels of poverty, low political freedoms…partly spurred onwards against the interests, involvement and injustices of the West in the Muslim world, sometimes involving military force, sometimes in ways which undermine sovereignty, and also in ways that can dramatically strengthen cultural ties, trade, education and opportunity).

There is a large pool of sentiment and longer trends in the Arab world toward such a revival (Hitchens also might argue like Ayan Hirsi Ali that most Muslims simply cannot conceive of separation of church and state) and there are actual thugs willing to carry it out violently in the form of Al-Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Taiba etc. These people need to be stood up to as Hitchens points out, and challenged. And if not by American citizens, then by default to our militaries and security agencies, but for Hitchens perhaps not so much by coalitions and diplomacy.

Hitchens has little patience for those in the West who don’t stand up to such thugs. He criticizes those who lose the facts in a fog of cultural relativism, those who out of fear or culturally ‘sensitive’ reasons (see Yale) get those facts wrong and capitulate too readily.

Such folks are often part of the Left he’s renounced, and much like the religious believers he denigrates and the stupidity and ignorance he’s wont to highlight, all of those folks have potentially lost sight of their moral obligations and capability to properly reason in Hitchens view, and deal lowly with our freedoms out of guilt and fear. This, of course, can lead to other problems.

A fair summary at the moment?

Addition: Is he still a socialist? A materialist? On a neoconservative trajectory out of British/European Leftism? Fully understanding of American traditions?

“At some point soon I will take up directly Eric Posner and Adrian Vermeule’s new book, The Executive Unbound, but in the meantime let me flag Harvey Mansfield’s polite but skeptical review in the New York Times Book Review.”